MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013278195 · doi:10.1353/vpr.0.0042

Reading Women: Literary Figures and Cultural Icons from the Victorian Age to the Present (review)

2008· article· en· W2013278195 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueVictorian periodicals review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature: history, themes, analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Context (archaeology)ClubHistoryLiteratureHollywoodMultitudeArtVisual artsArt historyPhilosophyLawLinguisticsMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Reading Women: Literary Figures and Cultural Icons from the Victorian Age to the Present Andrea Broomfield (bio) Janet Badia and Jennifer Phegley, eds., Reading Women: Literary Figures and Cultural Icons from the Victorian Age to the Present (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 2005), pp. x + 297, $60 cloth. Janet Badia and Jennifer Phegley's Reading Women: Literary Figures and Cultural Icons from the Victorian Age to the Present, starts with a fundamental question: what is it about images of reading women that continue to hold people's attention? For those interested in this question, Reading Women offers provocative, helpful answers. Influenced by Kate Flint's seminal The Woman Reader, 1837–1914, Badia and Phegley explore the woman reader in a wider historical context than do many previous studies on this topic. They open their collection in 1840s England, with Antonia Losano's "Reading Women/Reading Pictures: Textual and Visual Reading in Charlotte Bronte's Fiction and Nineteenth-Century Painting" and close in the present-day United States with Mary R. Lamb's "The 'Talking Life' of Books: Women Readers in Oprah's Book Club." Badia and Phegley also consider the woman reader in some surprisingly unexpected contexts—not only Oprah's televised book club, but also women reading in the British Library, women readers portrayed in Hollywood film, and even women readers as they are being used to market a current line of stationary. By considering such a multitude of contexts, Badia and Phegley fulfill their objective of enriching scholarly conversations about readers in history that Flint helped initiate. Indeed, Flint's helpful Afterword to this collection suggests future possible directions for scholarly inquiry in this discipline. [End Page 288] Two essays stand out as particularly noteworthy for VPR readers: Phegley's "Images of Women Readers in Victorian Family Literary Magazines," and Ruth Hoberman's "Depictions of Women in the British Museum Reading Room, 1875–1929." Phegley focuses on Braddon's editorship of Belgravia and Thackeray's editorship of Cornhill. Although more conservative in its approach to the woman reader than Belgravia, Cornhill did champion women's intellectual curiosity and argued that reading were quality literature could make women better citizens, wives, and mothers. Belgravia, predictably, put fewer conditions on women's reading. Whether "quality" or "sensation," Belgravia believed that women were capable of determining what and how to read, and more importantly, that women had every right to read for themselves—not only for the benefit of others. Phegley's analysis of Belgravia is particularly well done: she calls attention to under-explored portions of the magazine that will interest VPR readers, particularly as those portions concern Belgravia's ongoing debate about women's reading. Hoberman concentrates on women who used the British Museum reading room from the 1880s through the 1920s, with particular attention given to Eleanor Marx, Beatrice Potter, Dorothy Richardson, and Virginia Woolf. Women using the reading room from the 1880s to 1907, Hoberman convincingly argues, were delighted with its resources, often ignoring the "Ladies Only" section and sitting at whatever desk they chose—to the consternation, bemusement, and frustration of male patrons. However, from 1907, when the reading room was remodeled, up to the 1920s, women no longer viewed the reading room as a liberating space of vast resources; instead, they alluded to it in their writing as a male space that oppressed the women working there. The reasons are complex, and Hoberman covers several, with one reason concerning its decoration. When patrons returned to the room after its remodeling in 1907, they were now greeted with a ring of men's names inscribed in the moldings just beneath the dome. The reading room's accumulated cultural weight turned women who used it into mere thoughts in the dome's "huge bald forehead which is so splendidly encircled by a band of famous names," as Woolf writes in A Room of Her Own. Insightful essays on authors born after Woolf, such as Zora Neale Hurston and Ann Petry, and on many authors born before her, including Harriet Beecher Stowe and Louisa May Alcott, round out this collection. Badia and Phegley have included essays that touch directly on important historical themes and which address these...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVictorian periodicals reviewSame topicLiterature: history, themes, analysisFrench-language works237,207